Channel 9 - Discussions by dahathttp://mschnlnine.vo.llnwd.net/d1/Dev/App_Themes/C9/images/feedimage.pngChannel 9 - Discussions by dahathttps://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/dahat/Discussions
Channel 9 keeps you up to date with the latest news and behind the scenes info from Microsoft that developers love to keep up with. From LINQ to SilverLight – Watch videos and hear about all the cool technologies coming and the people behind them.https://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/dahat/Discussions
enTue, 03 Mar 2015 20:23:51 GMTTue, 03 Mar 2015 20:23:51 GMTRev9000Coffeehouse - Net Neutrality has a new champion

Anyone who seriously looks at this issue knows this is how it works. This argument is constantly being used to confuse uninformed people on the topic, and as usual, it tends to make sense if you are clueless.

So... my statement is correct... but making it makes me look clueless? What an odd thing to say... well not as odd as what you go on to say.

Of course some traffic requires lower latency than others.

Did I say otherwise?

But the traffic of two content providers of the same kind of traffic should not be allowed to be prioritized to the advantage of one and the detriment of the other.

I don't think anyone is advocating for Amazon to be able to pay UPS to slow down the delivery of packages from Best Buy. But shouldn't they have the option for different shipping speeds depending on need? Sometimes that means lower priority parcels may not get processed as fast.

Doesn't relate to the internet you say? You really should re-read the specs on the IPv4 packet... specifically the differentiated services field. It's almost as if the idea of prioritization was something that's been around for quite some time!

The horror!

You know this is the purpose of 'Net Neutrality(tm)' and yet you still make these "pipes are roads" and "bandwidth is limited" arguments.

Sorry for seeing the bigger picture.

If Hulu and Netflix each pay for 1 gbit connections to the network, then every client on every ISP had better get the same latency from each. Any variation had best be due to geography and physics, not purposeful throttling.

You assume the routes that Hulu and Netflix take in order to get to your house are the same... and that the routes do not vary depending the ISP someone is using. Spoiler: Not all of the connections between user and service are equal in capacity or utilization.

Such an assumption is not only woefully naïve, but absolutely incorrect.

Maybe you need to spend a little more time with tracert and less time arguing about things you don't understand?

then the pipe that your ISP builds, maintains, and controls is the one that goes from your house down to the river.

Rather simplistic with a single pipe and a single source... also leaving out the decreasing diameter of the pipe from source destination, the variable width at some destinations (residential vs industrial), fire hydrants, etc.

Nobody owns the river.

Never heard of riparian rights eh?

The Internet backbone is the river in this analogy, and likewise no single company owns the Internet backbone.

'the' Internet backbone? You realize there are multiple networks of backbones... right? And while connected at different points are what ISPs plug into one or more of?

Your ISP already control the pipes from your house to the river and they can already throttle you and charge a premium for higher flow if they want to.

Which is what people here don't seem to like... even though the bigger beef that most net neutrality supporters have is with explicit or implicit throttling closer to 'the' backbone where a peering agreement may no longer be effective due to unequal traversal (a common thing with video services) which means either paying more (ie a transit agreement) or suffering with a over saturated pipe.

That's not levying taxes at origin and destination, that's deciding who you want to support through taxes (which is a flaw of the tax structure of our transportation system). Completely different concepts.

You'll note I also pointed out registration which also pays for roads (granted to a lesser degree).

That has nothing to do with net neutrality, at all. Even with net neutrality, the ISP is free to set up the charging structure they want against their end users.

Re-read this thread... you'll notice I'm the only one pointing that out, something virtually every net neutrality discussion lacks... in fact some here are arguing against the possibility of a (higher) fee.

Remember when dial-up charged per hour? And of course, cell data charges per MB or per GB and home broadband service charges a flat rate with data caps. All of these are completely fine under net neutrality.

That depends on who you ask... which you actually argue against below without realizing it.

What the ISP can't do under net neutrality is throttle, alter, or delete packets based on content within the packet or the origin of the packet.

I'm familiar with the bumper sticker claim.

Bandwidth is a limited resource, both how much can enter/leave your home, but also at the ISP. Unlike you, the ISP usually has multiple connections to other data networks, some bigger than others, some more heavily utilized than others. When one of those pipes gets full throttling happens.

It is no different than if everyone on your block flushed their toilets at the same time.

Just because the road way says the upper limit is 55 doesn't mean you'll be able to do that if there is bumper to bumper slow moving traffic.

Like it or not, throttling is a reality, both online and off and net neutrality can do little about it... and sometimes it's even a necessity.

If a small subset of users are using a significant portion of the available bandwidth, throttling them makes sense to ensure other customers are able to have a quality experience. It's a simply a case of prioritizing the 'needs of the many.'

Do you want an virtually unlimited connection without any artificial throttling? You can have that today... you just have to pay for it... it's just going to cost more than most are willing to pay.

For every torrent mad basement dweller there are a couple dozen little old ladies who have a 50mbs connection that they only use for Facebook, email and a Roku. While overkill for them, this makes the economics work out so that we can all have a pretty fast internet connection for not a lot of money (kind of like how insurance is supposed to work)... but does not automatically mean that it's cost effective to upgrade a specific pipe when it is saturated.

Supporters of net neutrality generally ignore the costs involved in running a large scale network and discount the possibility that heavy users will see significant bills due to them having to bare the costs of their usage.

You've repeatedly ignored the fact that there are countless other areas in life where pipes exist that you use and which have limitations on them, I am highlighting your duplicity of wanting special treatment only for one kind of pipe.

Again I will ask: Why should the concepts that rightfully apply to every other pipe you deal with not also apply to the internet?

Paying for greater bandwidth can be a way to eliminate competition from start ups.

Because startups have been failing left and right solely because of the cost of bandwidth.

Again, you keep talking hypotheticals, how about dealing in solid facts instead of feelings?

Through collusion of Corporations, which is the norm, making the bandwidth necessary for a garage start-up so expensive that only deep pockets can afford it is what you are advocating.

I know you've got a big hate on for the evil corporations... but it's not the corporations which granted themselves regional monopolies on various utility services... it's your elected or appointed government official who is supposed to be acting in the public-trust that did that.

Have a beef with the state of affairs because you only have internet option? Take that up with your local government.

You are turning a blind eye to this anti-public-trust inevitability.

I don't even know what that means.

You support oppression of emerging business in favor of the Goliath's. That sucks. That doesn't have to happen. The internet and it's copper or glass is not going away.

This analogy is flawed, as are the remainder of the posts based on it.

Agreed, which is why I was poo pooing it.

The one who pays for the roads is the driver of the vehicle (via gasoline tax), but in the analogy the vehicle is equivalent to the data packet. Obviously, the data packet is not itself paying for the Internet.

Correct, the operator of the packet/vehicle is the one who pays for it's transport.

Inversely, if a car were like the internet, then taxes would be levied at the origin and destination of the drive.

They are actually for any distance driving. I've driven through Idaho plenty along I-90 and have never once fueling up there and with a vehicle registered out of state.

Speed limits on the road are provided for safety. There is nothing inherently dangerous about streaming at 100 Gbps versus 1 Mbps, so I don't see how this even compares at all.

The excuse is safety, however the lack of uniformity and even arbitrariness says otherwise.

Why is it when driving from South Dakota into Minnesota along I-90 the speed limit goes from 75 to 70? Is the stretch of I-90 in Minnesota that much more dangerous?

Why is it that when crossing from Idaho to Utah along I-84 I suddenly get to go from 75 to 80 MPH?

I pine for the German system where there are stretches where you can open it up... just so long as you do so safely.

You are right though... there is nothing inherently unsafe about higher speed data transfers (other than perhaps reliability and cost)... my point again was pointing out the poor example used.

@bondsbw: Well, if you wanted to try using a car analogy, it'd be like charging toll on I-5 and adding a surcharge for those cars that are heading home from Disneyland.

That'd probably depend on the traffic at that exit or section of road way... something we already have an analog to today... congestion pricing.

Here in Washington it costs a driver more to drive over the tolled 520 bridge to Seattle than it does during non-peak times... just as a bus riders pay more during peak time than not.

During peak times electricity costs more... (land line) long distance calls, cell phone minutes... odd how so many things react to peak demand and yet this one area we expect to be nearly free and unlimited.

That's the thing... it's not a simple thing. In theory it is, in practice it is very complex and you've not considered the implications of what you are advocating for.

Monetizing the pipe will screw garage-born innovation and start-ups, completely monopolize the internet. You're asking for Corporations to dictate traffic and that's just wrong, Corporations cannot be trusted with something as ubiquitous as the internet and the flow of digital data.

Yet we trust corporations to handle our power, water, sewer, trash, package delivery, etc. Sure, some places have such utilities run by the government (ditto for internet), your corporate hatred is blinding you from seeing that you are advocating for unequal treatment of a pipe which is not as dissimilar to plenty of others that are already monetized and that you pay for today.

I look at the internet like a public school or library. You don't charge for admittance, only for late fees. The internet should be an open forum, not the exclusive playground of the well off. Those in favor of 'classes of internet access' are oppressors of competition, start-ups, and the poor.

Again, nice in theory... hard in practice.

Who pays for a public school or library? The public... via direct or indirect taxes... so the reason for it being open is pretty clear.

Who pays for fiber to be buried and cable connections to your home? In general... it's not taxes that do it (except for the small fraction who benefit from the Universal Service Fund).

You can make the argument of costs here, costs there,

Which you keep brushing off... so what? They just don't exist? They are unimportant?

but the philosophy is what is at stake and the philosophy is either 1) open, inclusive to all, or 2) monetized for profit and exclusive to those who can pay for the quick responses that a garage start-up will always need in order to succeed.

Call me crazy... but the internet has been working well for quite sometime... and under principals similar to what you describe. There was a time when only the well to do and connected (usually at universities) could get access to the internet... now most ISPs have programs which will hook up poor students for less than the service costs.

If you want to gripe about the existing system and how your alternative system is so much better... fine, at least be specific with specific and real gripes and how your system would fix it... and not end up in a VA like mess which is killing people and at a inflated cost.

]]>https://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Net-Neutrality-has-a-new-champion/40c81a20e0c74a3cb5ffa3e801047b81#40c81a20e0c74a3cb5ffa3e801047b81
Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:48:23 GMThttps://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Net-Neutrality-has-a-new-champion/40c81a20e0c74a3cb5ffa3e801047b81#40c81a20e0c74a3cb5ffa3e801047b81dahat157https://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/dahat/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - No MSDN renew with media optionWhat about creating a bootable USB drive when needed and copying the contents of the ISO you want to load to a PC?

I honestly do not recall the last time I burned any optical media... all of my backups are either on hard drives on a shelf at home (just incase of a NAS failure), a shelf at work (offsite) or in the cloud (really offsite)... for PC installs I've been using a thumb drive for... 5+ years now.

Any chance you were the kid in this old Lotus ad? Your argument sounds similarly simple:

Just like highways.

You mean the roads which have toll roads from time to time and a large number of cross streets that slow you down? I prefer freeways for my distance driving... but even then there are costs involved: larger passenger vehicles cost more to license for road use than smaller ones, semi-trucks and commercial vehicles pay even more... and are inspected multiple times along the way. Never mind the speed limits which keep a driver from saving time when the roads are clean and visibility is good.

Anyone thinking it's not this simple is prying open the Capitalist Pandora's Box of Profit Modeling and they are already swimming in the wrong lake.

Or... many over simplify the issue without considering the implications of such a system.

Why does anyone want to make this complex? Just stop monetizing the pipe. Send your data and be quiet.

And who do you expect to pay for improvements and expansion to the pipe? With the exception of private roadways (of which there is a surprising number here in Washington state), no vehicle drives on a public roadway for free... the taxes on fuel & registration pay for those roads.

Who pays for network access? Oh right... the end users... and some pay more depending on their usage... just like cars. Drive a lot? You are going to pay more in fuel taxes. Send/receive a lot of data... maybe you should pay more per month than the 80 year old woman who only sends email and does light Facebooking.

Why should any packets cost more than any other packets. It's foolish. The ideal is probably well intended, but the implementation will have various degrees of unintended consequences.

Absolutely right! Why can't I have the same kind of cheap bandwidth and a cap in the hundreds of gigabytes with my cell phone that I do over my cable modem? Why should anyone have to pay more based on the transport layer to send their packet... it gets there in the end? Right? Just like there is no difference between USPS & FedEx.

There is no uniform cost of getting from point A to point B... different providers be they postal, person/object transport or telecom have their own variable costs... even over the same route... and most of those pushing hard for net neutrality tend to ignore than fact.

]]>https://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Net-Neutrality-has-a-new-champion/43d3d89505be4099bb2aa3e8003c98e4#43d3d89505be4099bb2aa3e8003c98e4
Wed, 19 Nov 2014 03:40:37 GMThttps://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Net-Neutrality-has-a-new-champion/43d3d89505be4099bb2aa3e8003c98e4#43d3d89505be4099bb2aa3e8003c98e4dahat157https://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/dahat/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Can you do a completely private lob app on WP?If you are just dealing with a phone or two, side loading a custom app with a dev unlocked phone would work... but if you have any desire to scale or update the app easily later it's a bit harder.

]]>https://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Can-you-do-a-completely-private-lob-app-on-WP/5605f6b027be42ec9cbba3e4016214fc#5605f6b027be42ec9cbba3e4016214fc
Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:29:10 GMThttps://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Can-you-do-a-completely-private-lob-app-on-WP/5605f6b027be42ec9cbba3e4016214fc#5605f6b027be42ec9cbba3e4016214fcdahat12https://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/dahat/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Net Neutrality has a new championAll of this celebration may be a bit premature as it seems the FCC chairman (an Obama appointee no less) doesn't quite agree with this stance: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/11/the-fcc-weighs-breaking-with-obama-over-the-future-of-the-internet/

I guess this means that 'new champion' is synonymous with 'influenceless lame duck' in this context.

Ask yourself if you'd feel the same way about water. You could pay for super-high-speed water that shows up in jiffy or you could pay for regular water that shows up only when the super-high-speed folks aren't busy using it.

Yet we have a system like that with water & power today... too much consumption by some (who pay for it based on usage) can deprive others of what they'd like to consume.

Unlike water & power (at least until the 'smart grid' hits), with internet access it's far easier to throttle individual or groups of users who are affecting the larger system.

Hmmm really in the US they need to make a small box like that and shove the Media center code in it and a cable card slot.

That sorta already exists... take the HDHomeRun Prime and the infiniTV6 ETH, network attacked cable tuners which support multi-stream cable cards. I've had the prior for years and love it... though they require Windows Media Center on a separate machine to handle DRMed content. Other apps can view the live & record the non-encrypted streams.

MS should have ported WMC to the XBOX ONE os from the start.... they did the guide but not the dvr and a few other bits....

I won't speculate publically as to why they didn't... or as to why they still haven't brought a full version of Media Center (or just a Media Center Extender) to the Xbox One... but I'm sure there are some significant reasons.

Like I said, creative misinterpretation. Go back and read the words that show up when you click those links and you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that they don't match any of what you said.

Remember how I was talking about context... even linking to articles I read to support my claims? Here you just say "they don't say what you think they said" without offering any supporting information.

It's almost as if you aren't interested in having a conversation and more interested in simply saying "you're wrong" over and over again... without ever even conceiving of the possibility that you yourself may have been wrong.

The CDC director said they should be able to contain an epidemic. That's been done. That some folks might get ill was suggested in the first link. No intelligent person doubted that could happen.

And before he made those comments he didn't think Ebola would reach our shores. Then we have two nurses infected and a few other possible cases. Only time will tell if he is right, but he's been wrong a few times thus far.

And the CDC director didn't "blame" anyone for breach of protocol.

No one by name but the implication was quite clear when he said: "at some point a breach of protocol". It probably wasn't you or I breaching protocol... but one of those interacting with Duncan who did... and given it wasn't you or I who was infected...

These folks aren't morons, and the suggested protocols have done a pretty good job of helping to contain this stuff in the past.

Pretty good? Again, the director said that it was a breach which caused the infections, ergo follow the protocols and you won't get infected, don't follow the protocols and you will... but is that what has happened?

Sh*t happens, however, and by all accounts, this hospital was not prepared for this.

True, but what about groups like Doctors Without Borders? Unlike virtually everyone staffing our local hospitals, they are the ones going into the hot zones to treat people at the source... and they have suffered a number of infections of their own... and you'd think that given such day to day interactions, they would be the most meticulous at practicing such protocols.

The CDC isn't in charge of the management of every hospital in the country, and if they tried to take on that task, you and your ilk would be the first ones to scream government over-regulation.

Tell me, what's it like to have Fox Derangement Syndrome? It's quite clear you are obsessed with them and assume I get all of my information from them... yet I do not think once (though I could be wrong) have I cited Fox here... instead citing a multitude of sources.

Odd how you cannot be bothered to do the same thing... even once.

But since you expect me to be as blindingly partisan as you are showing yourself to be, I guess I could give you an article which will send you into further fits, consider this: How the Feds Block Ebola Cures

Others say, he reported that he WAS in Africa recently around his sick cousin and the hospital just sent him home with a high fever anyways, and that they are at fault.

And this is something the hospital is investigating. There is a reason they call it 'practicing' medicine as it is unfortunately an imperfect field where imperfect humans are deeply involved with the diagnostic process... mistakes happen, as we see happened here.

Anyone with that high of a fever shouldn't be sent home, Ebola or not. Racial issues may be at the root of this botched care.

Who do you want to pay for that?

Unfortunately hospital resources are a limited one and their ability to admit everyone who is ill simply isn't possible. At last check, Duncan was without insurance for either of his trips to the US hospital, and the first time around they didn't think Ebola so released him with some antibiotics (not an uncommon thing with a fever when something more significant isn't suspected).

Ask yourself this... worst case lets say the first doctor was... a Grand Wizard of the KKK and said to himself "Black guy with Ebola... yeah, I'm going to get him on the street as fast as can be so he doesn't get treated and dies a horrible death"... do you think even he would be oblivious to the possibility of the infection spreading beyond just the initial person?

Someone f-ed up... and to blame racism is a ghastly thing.

]]>https://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Ebola-spreads-to-USA/13bbe33f6c754492915aa3c60148429d#13bbe33f6c754492915aa3c60148429d
Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:55:09 GMThttps://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Ebola-spreads-to-USA/13bbe33f6c754492915aa3c60148429d#13bbe33f6c754492915aa3c60148429ddahat82https://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/dahat/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Ebola spreads to USAThanks ScanIAm for providing a bit of utter hilarity in these dark times of Ebola, ISIS and winter coming.

Thanks for taking my comment out of context and then running a near marathon with that strawman. I'll go ahead and put it up there again so you can be sure to re-read it:

So you accuse me of taking your quote out of context... but actually failed to provide context then or not. Sure you quoted jinx both times, neither of you specified which news reports or who was being reported on... so I did.

How is that out of context?

Oh right! Bringing some possible context to a discussion means implicitly taking all other statements out of context... that must be it, right?

I have and continue to cite either specific articles or specific cases... you've done neither.

Remind me now... who is pulling a strawman?

Now, please show me where a CDC official ever stated any of that. Or you could just slither back to FreeRepublic.com and look for more reasons why Obummer beat Liberty to death with a copy of Das Kapital.

Again, here we see you engaging in strawman tactics as I have not cited any of those sites or arguments you seem to be implying I read. Odd how I'm not telling you to back to the Daily Kos or Pravda... it's almost as if I'm discussing the topic at hand.

More so, did you note JohnAskew's comment from earlier today? It is one that has been of concern of many in the medical arena, the fact that Ebola transmission isn't fully understood and that it may spread easier than previously believed.

If you want to limit sources to just the CDC then that is your right to shield yourself from other perhaps contradictory or even more correct information. That's how science tends to work, various studies put forward and examined before some being accepted and others discounted... if you wish to view the CDC as the source of all medical truth in the country that is your right... but I think you'll eventually find it a rather limited one.

Or would you care to cite specifics facts or articles? Of course not.

]]>https://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Ebola-spreads-to-USA/f275d55eec394d109a0fa3c601447af2#f275d55eec394d109a0fa3c601447af2
Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:41:23 GMThttps://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Ebola-spreads-to-USA/f275d55eec394d109a0fa3c601447af2#f275d55eec394d109a0fa3c601447af2dahat82https://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/dahat/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Ebola spreads to USA*facepalm* Another example of the ineptitude of the CDC:

CDC is asking all 132 passengers on Frontier Airlines flight 1143 from CLE to DFW on 10/13 to call 1-800-CDC-INFO: http://t.co/FVa0P8pjpM

Because it's so hard for the CDC to get a copy of the manifest directly from the airline.

]]>https://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Ebola-spreads-to-USA/c8f71baf4a714bf5990ca3c50143ba45#c8f71baf4a714bf5990ca3c50143ba45
Wed, 15 Oct 2014 19:38:39 GMThttps://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Ebola-spreads-to-USA/c8f71baf4a714bf5990ca3c50143ba45#c8f71baf4a714bf5990ca3c50143ba45dahat82https://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/dahat/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Ebola spreads to USA@cbae: Thank you once again for your valuable contributions, you are sounding just as delusional and bating as ever.

@dahat: The government and CDC have botched this responsibility. It's pretty much the most important thing they've ever attempted to do, the CDC, and they're pretty much terribly failing on an ongoing basis.

The CDC is only able to operate within narrow areas... and depending on the situation, only with the authority of those it reports to.

The fact that there is still not a travel ban to/from affected countries is beyond me. Claims that that would hobble our aid efforts are nonsense as even with our travel ban to/from Cuba, there are ways around it and ways that we can monitor.

We should have never de-funded the NIH, the federal government is OURS, not some enemies'. It's supposed to be there for this type of event, not run off and into the dust by political minimalists.

Aside from the fact that they are acting within the confines imposed on them... they also (understandably) have a vested interest in self-preservation and limiting panic. If the current management is found to be too incompetent, they may find themselves spending more time with their family... just like the recent axing of the head of the Secret Service... and only after a lapse which potentially endangered the President's life but not after countless previous issues.

Those hospitals are among only four in the country that have biocontainment units and have been preparing for years to treat a highly infectious disease like Ebola.

I agree. Not all hospitals are created equal, many specialize in different areas and may not be suited to respond to some kinds of illnesses. While there would likely be controversy over transporting an infected person and the concerns of additional exposure, leaving that to those who are better trained in such thing I would expect is less of a threat than expecting your average hospital attempt to manage the situation with input from afar.

"Nurses were forced to use medical tape to secure openings in their flimsy garments, worried that their necks and heads were exposed as they cared for a patient with explosive diarrhea and projectile vomiting, said Deborah Burger of National Nurses United."

"...the Ebola patient's lab samples were allowed to travel through the hospital's pneumatic tubes, opening the possibility of contaminating the specimen delivery system. The nurses also alleged that hazardous waste was allowed to pile up to the ceiling."

"CDC also says woman who went to Ohio should not have been travelling after having contact with Ebola patient."

-100

You mean their oh so perfect protocols weren't followed to the letter? *gasp*

And these new possible exposures in addition to the other 70 or so who interacted with Duncan while he was being treated... not to mention his family here in the states (who violated their isolation agreement possibly exposing others)... the first responders to the apartment... the NBC news crew who also violated their isolation agreement.

"Because of the proximity in time between the evening flight and first report of illness the following morning, CDC is reaching out to passengers who flew on Frontier Airlines flight 1143 Cleveland to Dallas/Fort Worth Oct. 13," the CDC said in a statement. The flight landed Monday at 8:16 p.m. CT. - she boarded the plane with a temperature of 99.5 F... was she REALLY told not to fly or is that BS cover-up after the fact?

The CDC & local authorities have been asking those suspected of being exposed to agree to stay home (ignoring the risks to other members of the household)... the only enforcement they are using today is seeking a judicial order AFTER they violate the agreement to state home.

Of course, these requests are a bit problematic as most people don't have enough food around their house to hold out up to the full 21 days of exposure.

Remember too, Duncan lied on a form when leaving the infected area about his not having had contact with anyone infected... our domestic response is only slightly more advanced.

I don't know what kind of news you have been listening to for the last 40+ years, but I've heard officials say exactly the opposite of what you claimed they have said.

Care to cite that news? Or how about some recent news? I seem to recall the guy at the top saying the following recently:

First and foremost, I want the American people to know that our experts, here at the CDC and across our government, agree that the chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low. We've been taking the necessary precautions, including working with countries in West Africa to increase screening at airports so that someone with the virus doesn't get on a plane for the United States. In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores, we've taken new measures so that we're prepared here at home.

Sure you've heard the opposite claims... the opposite of what was claimed have turned out to be true. What does that say about the quality of the reporting/predictions?

The necessary precautions failed to prevent Duncan from entering the country. The controls here at home also failed to prevent infection of the two nurses... and it still early.

Hell, even the CDC had to walk back their claims that the first nurse clearly violated their oh so perfect protocols... I guess #2 did so similarly.

There is a reason I brought up the Spanish Inquisition... this constant need to rapidly reframe the issue suggests they not that the situation is changing rapidly, but that they are both not prepared but also not able to adequately manage the situation.

It has been explained why this gap exists. You've ignored it. Then you discover why the gap exists... but it's seeming irrelevant.

By people experiencing the tears.

Again you fail to pay attention. The issue was experienced by a small % of people who were using the product as designed (my wife included). The problem has clearly been resolved as it's not an ongoing thing.

You're getting sidetracked, dude. Focus on the Type Cover 3. As I said before, regardless of the reason for the gap in the Type Cover 2, it doesn't pertain to the Type Cover 3.

I'm getting sidetracked? You are the one highlighting the internals of the Type Cover 2 to understand why the gap is important... then go off on your tangent again because the facts are deemed unimportant with regards to the Type Cover 3.

Wait no... you're right, that's not getting sidetracked... that's called running straight off the end of the tracks because you ignored every warning sign along the way.

I'm done arguing with someone over this who repeatedly ignored the explanations from me and others and who has failed to do even basic research or reasoning as to if this is actually a problem with tactile time on the device.

Explicitly you didn't, however in an image above you highlighted a specific area saying "Plenty of space for wiring if that is indeed the reason for the extra margin on the Type Cover 2".

Anyone with a basic understanding of keyboards knows that wiring would not make sense to move to such an area without moving the associated ICs along with.

I'm sorry for assuming you had such a basic understanding.

My whole point is that the extra space for whatever reason was required in the Type Cover 2 would already be accommodated in the Type Cover 3 even if the keys were pushed up further.

Again you demonstrate that you are not paying attention.

If you were, you would come to realize that that pushing those keys more to the top would mean moving them (and the fingers which push them) very close to the screen... resulting in accidental input on the touch display.

You try paying attention next time.

My point for point refutation of virtually every word you have said seems to suggest that I am... odd how you keep failing to recognize that.

So the only purpose of the gap in the Type Cover 2 seems to be to allow more flexibility when the keyboard is flipped back underneath.

I think that is about as close as we are going to get to you admitting that you were wrong.

Of course, doing so was ill-advised as this caused the seam to come apart.

Ill-advised? Says who? Isn't that what it was designed to do (fold back that is)?

With regards to the seam coming apart, you mean like this?

How many cases of that have you heard about since late 2012/early 2013?

What about on the Type Cover 2? Or the Touch Covers?

I'm just going to guess... isn't it possible that given it was happening only to a small number of covers, that there might have been a manufacturing issue with some of them... an issue that has since been resolved? Maybe?